The role of ulterior motives, inconsistencies, and details in unreliable jailhouse informant testimony

References

• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, G. L., & Cutler, B. L. (1996). Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 170–177. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, G. L., Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors’ evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 79–88. doi: 10.1007/BF01499074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond, C. F., Howard, A. R., Hutchison, J. L., & Masip, J. (2013). Overlooking the obvious: Incentives to lie. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35, 212–221. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2013.764302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. M., Neuschatz, J., Kimbrough, C., Reed, K., Magyarics, C., & Luecht, K. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 13–28. doi:10.1037/lhb0000223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2017). The jury under fire: Myth, controversy, and reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cassidy, M. (2004). “Soft words of hope”: Giglio, accomplice witnesses, and the problem of implied inducements. Northwestern University Law Review, 98, 1129–1177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Covey, R. D. (2014). Abolishing jailhouse snitch testimony. Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 1375–1545.
   Google Scholar
• Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1164–1184. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fein, S., Hilton, J. L., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 753–764. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.753
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215–1226. doi: 10.1177/01461672972311008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fessinger, M. B., Bornstein, B. H., Neuschatz, J. S., DeLoach, D., Hillgartner, M. A., Wetmore, S. A., & Bradfield-Douglass, A. (in press). Informants v. innocents: Informant testimony and its contribution to wrongful conviction. Capital University Law Review.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, B. L. (2010). The substance of false confessions. Stanford Law Review, 62(4), 1051–1119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Strömwal, L. A. (2000). Effects of preconceptions on deception detection and new answers to why lie-catchers often fail. Psychology, Crime and Law, 6, 197–218. doi: 10.1080/10683160008409804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., & Montgomery, N. (2005). Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 523–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innocence Project. (2016). The causes: Incentivized informants. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/incentivized-informants/
   Google Scholar
• Kim, R. K., & Levine, T. R. (2011). The effect of suspicion on deception detection accuracy: Optimal level or opposing effects? Communication Reports, 24, 51–62. doi: 10.1080/08934215.2011.615272
   Google Scholar
• Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2008). Individual differences in attitudes relevant to juror decision making: Development and validation of the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2010–2038. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00378.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT). Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 378–392. doi: 10.1177/0261927X14535916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., & Blair, J. P. (2010). (In)accuracy at detecting true and false confessions and denials: An initial test of a projected motive model of veracity judgments. Human Communication Research, 36, 82–102. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01369.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder, E. M., & Pica, E. (2014). Secondary confessions: The influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of informant testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 560–568. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natapoff, A. (2009). Snitching: Criminal informants and the erosion of American justice. New York, NY: New York University Press. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84901100744&partnerID=40&md5=0d1634e9c0002482555a8ef1594e681a
   Google Scholar
• Neuschatz, J. S., Lawson, D. S., Swanner, J. K., Meissner, C. A., & Neuschatz, J. S. (2008). The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 137–149. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9100-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuschatz, J. S., Wilkinson, M. L., Goodsell, C. A., Wetmore, S. A., Quinlivan, D. S., & Jones, N. J. (2012). Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, 179–192. doi: 10.1007/s11896-012-9102-x
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, M. A., Button, L., Barnett, E., & Brewer, N. (2016). Inconsistencies undermine the credibility of confession evidence. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21, 161–173. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.12048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
   Google Scholar
• Roth, J. A. (2016). Informant witnesses and the risk of wrongful convictions. American Criminal Law Review, 53, 737–797.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salerno, J. M., & Diamond, S. S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 174–179. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.2.174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schul, Y., Burnstein, E., & Bardi, A. (1996). Dealing with deceptions that are difficult to detect: Encoding and judgment as a function of preparing to receive invalid information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 228–253. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1996.0011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• State of Florida v. Chad Richard Heins, No. 94- 3965-CF (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Dec 10, 1996).
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Trott, S. S. (1996). Words of warning for prosecutors using criminals as witnesses. Hastings Law Journal, 47, 1381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11, 89–121. doi: 10.1177/1529100610390861
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Warden, R. (2004). The snitch system: How incentivized witnesses put 38 innocent Americans on death row. Northwestern University School of Law, Center on Wrongful Convictions, 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., & Gronlund, S. D. (2014). On the power of secondary confession evidence. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 20, 339–357. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2013.777963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woestehoff, S. A., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). Juror sensitivity to false confession risk factors: Dispositional vs. situational attributions for a confession. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 564–579. doi:10.1037/lhb0000201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar